1. Now, after, etc Here, first, we see the steadfastness of God in watching over his people, and providing for their safety. The sanction given to Joshua’s appointment, as new leader by a renewed commission, ¹³¹³     “A renewed commission.” Latin, “Repetitis mandatis.” French, “En reiterant les articles de sa commission;” “By reiterating the articles of his commission.” — Ed. was intended to indicate the continuance of his favor, and prevent the people from thinking themselves forsaken in consequence of the death of Moses. Joshua, indeed, had already been chosen to rule the people; and not only invested with the office, but also endowed with spiritual gifts. But as the most valiant, however well provided, are apt to halt or waver when the period for action arrives, the exhortation to Joshua to make ready forthwith for the expedition was by no means superfluous. Still, however, the call thus formally given was not so much on his own account, as to inspire the people with full confidence in following a leader whom they saw advancing step by step in the path divinely marked out for him. ¹⁴¹⁴     Or rather, “Who they saw, did not advance a single step till the Lord had preceded him.” — Ed.

2. Moses my servant, etc A twofold meaning may be extracted — the one, since Moses is dead, the whole burden has now devolved upon thee, take the place of him to whom thou has been appointed successor; the other, although Moses is dead, do not desist, but go forward. I prefer the former, as containing the inference that he should, by right of succession, take up the office which Moses had left vacant. ¹⁵¹⁵     “Which Moses had left vacant.” Latin, “Ex qua decesserat Moses.” French, “De laquelle Moyse estoit sorti ayant fait son temps;” “Which Moses had left, having held his own time of it.” — Ed. The epithet or surname of servant applied to Moses, has respect to his government of the people and his exploits; for it ought to be accommodated to actual circumstances. ¹⁶¹⁶     “To actual circumstances.” Latin, “Ad circumstantiam loci.” French, “A la circonstance du passage;” “To the circumstance of the passage.” — Ed. The allusion here is not to the Law but to the leadership, which had passed to Joshua by the decease of Moses, and God thus acknowledges his servant, not so much with the view of praising him, as of strengthening the authority of Joshua, who had been substituted in his place. And as the people might not have acquiesced sufficiently in a bare command, he promises, while ordering them to pass the Jordan, to give them peaceable possession of the whole country, and of every spot of it on which they should plant their foot. For as nothing tends more than distrust to make us sluggish and useless, so when God holds forth a happy issue, confidence inspires us with rigor for any attempt.

It may be added, that he does now begin for the first time to give them good hopes, by making a promise of which they had not previously heard, but recalls to their remembrance what Moses had formerly testified. He says, therefore, that the time had now come for exhibiting and performing that which he had promised to Moses. Should any one object that the same thing had been said to Abraham long before Moses was born, nay, that the perpetual covenant deposited with Abraham included everything which was heard by Moses four hundred years after; ¹⁷¹⁷     The French here gives the same meaning in a paraphrastic form, “Ou mesmes qu’a parler proprement, tout ce qui a este dit a Moyse dependoit de l’alliance perpetuelle que Dieu avoit mise en garde entre les mains d’Abraham quatre cens ans auparavant.” “Or even, to speak properly, all that was said to Moses depended on the perpetual covenant which God had deposited in the hands of Abraham four hundred years before.” — Ed. I answer, that here no notice is taken of the ancient promise which was everywhere known and celebrated, and that Moses is produced as a witness whose memory was more recent, and by whose death the confidence of the people might have been shaken, had not God declared that the accomplishment of all which he had said was at hand.

4. From the wilderness and this Lebanon, etc How the truth and fulfillment of this promise surmounted all the obstacles interposed by the wickedness of the people, though they did not obtain immediate possession of the whole territory, I have explained in the Argument. For although God had unfolded the inestimable treasures of his beneficence by constituting them lords of the country, it did not follow that their misconduct was not to be chastised. Nay, there behooved to be a fulfillment of the threatening which Moses had denounced, viz., that if the nations doomed to destruction were not destroyed, they would prove thorns and stings in their eyes and sides. But as the promise was by no means broken or rendered void by the delay of forty years, during which they were led wandering through the desert, so the entire possession, though long suspended, proved the faithfulness of the decree by which it had been adjudged.

The people had it in their power to obtain possession of the prescribed boundaries in due time; they declined to do so. For this they deserved to have been expelled altogether. ¹⁸¹⁸     The two last sentences form only one in the French, which is as follows, “Le peuple pouuoit du premier coup, et des l’entree s’estendre jusqu’aux bornes que Dieu lui mesme auoit marquees; il n’a pas voulu: il estoit bien digne d’en estre mis dehors, et du tout forclos.” “The people might at the first blow, and immediately on their entrance, have extended themselves to the limits which God himself had marked; they would not: they well deserved to be put out and wholly foreclosed.” — Ed. But the divine indulgence granted them an extent of territory sufficient for their commodious habitation; and although it had been foretold that, in just punishment, the residue of the nations whom they spared would prove pernicious to them, still, they suffered no molestation, unless when they provoked the Divine anger by their perfidy and almost continual defection: for as often as their affairs became prosperous, they turned aside to wantonness. Still, owing to the wonderful goodness of God, when oppressed by the violence of the enemy, and, as it were, thrust down to the grave, they continued to live in death; and not only so, but every now and then deliverers arose, and, contrary to all hope, retrieved them from ruin. ¹⁹¹⁹     Latin, “Qui praeter spem rebus perditis succurrerent;” French, “Qui outre toute esperance venoyent a remedier aux affaires si fort deplorez, et redresser aucunement l’estat du peuple;” “Who, beyond all hope, came to remedy the very deplorable affairs, and, in some degree, restore the condition of the people.” — Ed.

The Great Sea means the Mediterranean, and to it the land of the Hittites forms the opposite boundary; in the same way Lebanon is opposed to the Euphrates; but it must be observed that under Lebanon the desert is comprehended, as appears from another passage. ²⁰²⁰     Calvin’s language here is not very clear, and seems to convey an erroneous impression. The desert or wilderness, instead of being comprehended under Lebanon, is obviously contrasted with it, and forms the south, while Lebanon forms the north frontier. We have thus three great natural boundaries — Lebanon on the north, the desert of Sin on the south, and the Mediterranean on the west. The eastern boundary occasions more difficulty. According to some, the Euphrates is expressly mentioned as this boundary, and an attempt is made to reconcile the vast difference between the actual possession of the Israelites, even in the most prosperous period of their history, and the tract of country thus bounded, by having recourse to the explanation of St. Augustine, who, in his Commentary on Joshua 21, gives it as his opinion that the country extending eastward beyond the proper limits of Canaan was intended to be given not so much for possession as for tribute. This view receives some confirmation from the extensive conquests which were made by David and Solomon. According to other expositors, the Euphrates is intended to be taken in connection with Lebanon so as to form, by one of its windings or branches, part of the north boundary, while the east boundary is left indefinite, or rather, was so well defined by the Jordan that it did not require to be separately mentioned. In this general uncertainty, there is much practical wisdom in Calvin’s suggestion in his Argument, that the indefiniteness of the boundaries assigned to the promised land, contrasted with its actual limits, tended to elevate the minds of Old Testament believers, and carry them beyond the present to a period when, under a new and more glorious dispensation, the promise would be completely fulfilled. — Ed.